Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-07
review-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-07-secdir-lc-mandelberg-2018-04-19-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 12)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2018-04-12
Requested 2018-03-29
Authors Lyle Bertz , David Dolson , Yuval Lifshitz
I-D last updated 2018-04-19
Completed reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Joel Jaeggli (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -07 by Michael Tüxen (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -07 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by David Mandelberg (diff)
Assignment Reviewer David Mandelberg
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 07 (document currently at 12)
Result Has nits
Completed 2018-04-19
review-ietf-dime-rfc4006bis-07-secdir-lc-mandelberg-2018-04-19-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

The summary of the review is Ready with nits.

(nit) The term AVP is used extensively, and I don't see a definition. 
Would its definition be obvious to anybody implementing this spec? I'm 
assuming it means attribute-value pair.

(nit, section 5.1.1) "For time based services, the quota is continuously 
consumed at the regular rate of 60 seconds per minute." Are leap seconds 
a problem?

-- 
Freelance cyber security consultant, software developer, and more
https://david.mandelberg.org/